Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Media

Google's Search Results Begin Prioritizing 'Original Reporting' (thehill.com) 34

Posted by EditorDavid from the teaching-an-old-dog-news-tricks dept.
In the future Google will promote news articles that feature original reporting in its search results, the Hill reports. "While we typically show the latest and most comprehensive version of a story in news results, we've made changes to our products globally to highlight articles that we identify as significant original reporting," Richard Gingras, Google's vice president of news, said in a blog post. "Such articles may stay in a highly visible position longer. This prominence allows users to view the original reporting while also looking at more recent articles alongside it." On top of the change for individual articles, Google's search raters will also begin identifying outlets that have a track record of original reporting in order to boost their content in search results...

For Google, the shift will mostly come in a change in guidelines for the 10,000 employees at the company who operate its search algorithms. The guidelines will now emphasize promoting an article that "provides information that would not otherwise have been known had the article not revealed it." And it will push raters to boost outlets with strong journalistic reputations. "Prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize award, or a history of high quality original reporting are strong evidence of positive reputation," the new guidelines read.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Search Results Begin Prioritizing 'Original Reporting' More

Google's Search Results Begin Prioritizing 'Original Reporting'

Comments Filter:

  • The right thing to do (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GeLeTo ( 527660 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @11:48AM (#59196768)
    This is the right thing to do - reward original reporting rather than just re-posting. This in turn will make news outlets hire more reporters and increase original content instead of focusing on rehashing the news that stay on top of the feed. I just hope google will show the latest update from the original source instead of the original story.

    • Reuters and Associated Press probably won't be to happy, it will be interesting to see how this develops.

    • On the face of it, it looks like the right thing to do. But since the decisions are made by algorithms, not humans, they will be gamed just as Google's algorithms have in the past. What they have most likely come up with is the perfect promotional platform for fake news and conspiracy theories, because from the description, these would appear to be rewarded quite favorably by the chosen criteria.

    • Maybe it's not the right thing to do, who knows what that is? Who can even guess what all the consequences are? But it certainly seems better than alternatives, at least at this point before it's been implemented.
    • No it won't. That's like saying if we tariff the shit outta imports, it'll drive jobs back to the US.
      • Tariffs on imports are a necessary step towards making outsourced jobs economically viable within a nation with a higher minimum wage. It cannot be the only step, as there does have to be an investment in infrastructure. And the job losses from a declining imports market would need to be replaced before economic harm was done. Ultimately, the result of tarrifs is an increase in cost of goods which must be absorbed by the market and adapted to. This adaptation of the market is the goal of the tariffs, but ta

    • Original fake news then.

  • So, to get it straight, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @12:04PM (#59196814)

    It's now better to report something as soon as you have a hint of what might be going on and speculate wildly to fill in the gaps instead of waiting for all the facts?

    Doesn't sound like anything is changing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Google already ranks reputable news sources higher. Reputable sources stick to the known facts.

      They have been doing it for a while in order to fight fake news.

  • Thank Goodness (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )
    That Google is thinking about us and what is the right thing to do. Or I wonder, maybe they are doing stuff to get focus off of anti trust and other scrutiny at what their anti do no evil corporate mission statement must be now. No, can't be. They must be thinking about goodness and light, and helping the world.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      All Google has to be thinking to make this decision is that they want more relevant search results. I don't generally want metacommentary, as it is usually less informed than the source article. I really only want the original most of the time. If I know I want something else, I can search for that specifically.

  • What I would prefer is for them not to link to forum posts that ask a question but never give an answer. It is annoying when looking for the answer to a problem to get inundated with results that are simply other people having the same problem. I want solutions, not solidarity.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What I would prefer is for them not to link to forum posts that ask a question but never give an answer. It is annoying when looking for the answer to a problem to get inundated with results that are simply other people having the same problem. I want solutions, not solidarity.

      What's worse is that they've deprioritized most forum posts altogether. If I have a problem with my FooBarXYZ123, or I want to know how the FooBarXYZ123 differs from the BarFu321ZYX, the first page is typically spam from vendors off

  • Good Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @12:38PM (#59196898)
    The best form of censorship is no censorship. Google wants to play favorites.

    This arose because original reporting was getting hijacked by copycats. Good intentions.

    What are the un-intended consequences? Well, for one, original reporting by non-organizatons or very small organizations will be suppressed, as will criticism of "original" reporting.

    How do I know this? I don't. I couldn't. Because Google isn't open-sourcing their "algorithm." ...Which probably involves some very human thumbs on scales.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How far back in history? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @01:30PM (#59197042)

    "Prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize award, or a history of high quality original reporting are strong evidence of positive reputation," the new guidelines read.

    I have to wonder how far back in history they're looking for a "positive reputation". Several media outlets that used to have very good reputations have gone way downhill in recent years (NYT, WaPo and CNN in particular).

  • Glad they're catching up to Slashdot high standards ðY

  • No results found. (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Sunday September 15, 2019 @05:26PM (#59197498)

    Original? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • It's for nothing to do with being original. It's not hard to see why. Big companies can buy advertising. Independent journalists are lucky to eat.
  • That type or original reporting?
  • Is that 'Original Reporting'?
    A short clip of a politician having health problems while trying to give a speech?
    Coughing fits? Allergy? Is that original reporting?
    A person who worked as a freelance journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and got the video?
    The event happened, it can be seen, the video exists.
    Who in an ad company and video platform gets to say when the 'Original Reporting' ends?
    Only the freelance journalist at the political event who saw the political with the health problem can do

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close